Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manspreading

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manspreading

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability policy for neologisms. Reliable secondary sources are minimal and mostly discuss the issue peripherally. Vectro (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no place on Wikipedia. It belongs elsewhere, such as tumblr. My primary problem with this article is that, as others have said, it is badly sourced. Additionally, it is poorly covered and is lacking in quality overall. Finally, it appears to be less impartial than I have come to expect from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.14.210.82 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This kind of stuff belongs on Urban Dictionary, not here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve and possibly rename. It's a very real phenomenon (I've done it myself many times), but the article sucks right now. --98.180.1.222 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, article is unsourced and seems to be a rather niche phenomenon. BoxofPresents (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it unsourced? There are multiple references including from major news sources like the New York Times and National Post.Fyddlestix (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough coverage in RS to satisfy WP:GNG and warrant an article on this. Take this article in the New York Times, for example. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most sources either link to opinion pieces or do not specifically address "mansplaining" that an encyclopedia requires. Short internet trends do not require articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep anyone who rides public transit gas seen this phenomenon. 166.216.165.90 (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are enough reliable sources. While the concept may not live into the next century (though who knows?), it's certainly not a mere internet trend. Of course the article is a magnet for angry white men — a few minutes ago, I removed a new and pointy gallery, which has already been reinserted from another IP — but we have many articles of which that is true. Perhaps semiprotection should be considered. I don't understand why the last Delete voter above wants sources that address "mansplaining", but perhaps that was a mere typo or autocorrect error. Bishonen | talk 13:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia should try to remain neutral and this article should also not be written as a misandric propaganda piece, and the angry white men argument is a fallacy, though I must agree that this article would need more protection and should be watched more carefully, not only to protect it from one side, but from the other as well, neutrality above all.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if the article can remain neutral and try to explain the gender neutral parts of it as was done in Mansplaining and make the criticism part as adequate and make it primarily over the controversy as opposed to a single gendered phenomenon some media outlets have painted it to be I'd say that it's a weak keep, but due to the lack of neutrality and the inherent sexism of the term and its history I'd be against it, but that would be the same as a Jew being against an article on anti-semitism and as feelings are not important I'd say that this subject has been covered enough to gain notability, and since notability is not something that's temporarily and this subject has been covered for quite some time I'd almost go for keep, but the article should remain neutral and I think that it would require more administrators than most other articles. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IP editors are currently trying to disrupt this AfD, please be vigilant of the page history as they attempt to change editors statements. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is about a notable enough concept as is evident from the available sources. I see no argument to the contrary. The issue with this being neologism is neither here or there since the article is not about a word per se. Peter ^Isotalo 15:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even if I don't consider the issue relevant (even if women less often take up 2 seats by moving their knees apart, they may do so by putting a bag on the adjacent sear) the coverage of this issue and discussion of it make it notable. I could see psosibly creating a larger article about the act of taking up multiple seats (an issue that comes up with obese airline passengers) and having this just be a section within it though. This would allow a wider scope of discussion. 64.228.88.84 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a first world problem to me, but I guess more trivial things than this have become notable. The significant coverage is surprising but impossible to ignore. There's no end to the number of hits found on Google News, and I have no doubt that this article could be easily expanded to several times its current size with a bit of effort. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources discuss the phenomenon in depth. (NYT, Telegraph, Time) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 04:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first is already posted above. The telegraph article is an opinion column, the 3rd is the daily show. Neither are WP:RS. ― Padenton|✉ 03:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is Wikipedia, not tumblr. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is quite clear in its opening sentence. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide." This is slang. If an article must be made (doubtful with these sources), the name should be defined by this paragraph: "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." ― Padenton|✉ 03:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIC is an invalid deletion rationale here because the article isn't about a word, it is about a behavior. If you have problems with the word itself, you can always request that it be moved to a different title after the AfD has concluded. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 15:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic half the entries on Urban Dictionary would qualify for wikipedia articles. Should I get on that?― Padenton|✉ 14:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe that one region that wikipedia is severely lacking in is body language pages. We need more such pages indtead of deleting them. 89.242.80.81 (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of wp:Reliable sources, Wikipedia is still not censored. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - many reliable newspapers and magazines have had articles on the phenomenon, not the word itself. Wikipedia has many odd articles. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes: WP:GNG. For starters, see Google News search results. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many people here have said the article should be kept because the phenomenon is real. But the question here isn't whether or not it is real, or is or is not a problem, but rather whether the term or the behavior is sufficiently notable to need its own article. Vectro (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.